Never said it 'magically cures all moire,' but I'm pretty sure you know that. There are very specific circumstances that will cause the 6D to show moire, and it's most pronounced (like in the above clip) when sharpness is turned up. It's much lower (though still present) when the camera isn't doing broad-stroke sharpening to the image. Moire is an issue when you film things that will obviously produce moire, so small framing and focus adjustments can normally make the problem less serious than filming rows of parallel lines, which the majority of videographers don't do. These small, often on-the-fly adjustments are what professionals do every time they put a camera in their hand.

I don't whip-pan a DSLR because the sensor doesn't scan globally. I don't film completely overexposed content because I can't recover the highlights. I don't shoot on class 2 memory cards because they're not fast enough. And I don't crank the in-camera sharpening up, shoot tons of fine pattern detail that a line-skipping sensor can't properly resolve, and then get angry at the camera when it doesn't look right.

There's a tool for every situation. The 6D is great for plenty of them. Certainly more than enough for it to be "usable shooting video."

Yeah the not usable for any video is going way too far, but OTOH I think it is good that the OP makes it clear that there is a video difference between the 5D3 and the 6D and it's not just the fps and AF and such that are different and that it is not a trivial difference.

Giving slight focus misses can sometimes help a bit, but that won't work for every scenario.

And it's not just regular brick patterns, it is ripple patterns on lakes, long thing branches, wires, tiny Christmas lights moving in the wind appearing to flicker on and off as they hit part of the sensor that is sampled or not sampled, etc.

When they release a filter for it I'm sure it will help, not perfectly but definitely help, although it makes it more of a pain to use as the little do everything cam since each time you go back for a few stills snaps you have to mess with the filter.

Anyway, I'm sure the 6D is plenty usable for video, but it certainly has it's issues (on top of all the ones the 5D3 itself has), some may be OK with that for the savings but for those who go 5D3 instead you certainly get something extra in the video department as well as just the stills and general handling department.

Every camera has concessions. And the major concessions the 6D has, are nowhere near solved by having a 5D3.

It used to be the 5D2 bores. Glad they've been more upwardly mobile this time. If you are a 5D3 user and you want to pith all over the 6D's parade then have fun. The guys shooting on C300's, Sony F's or Arri's haven't even noticed you are in the room.

It is all relative. If somebody is capable of getting good video out of a 5D3, then they will be capable of getting good video out of a 6D.

Both the 6D and 5D3 are good video cameras, but the superiority complex 5D3 users really are having a big old laugh to themselves when it comes to moire etc.

Every camera has concessions. And the major concessions the 6D has, are nowhere near solved by having a 5D3.

It used to be the 5D2 bores. Glad they've been more upwardly mobile this time. If you are a 5D3 user and you want to pith all over the 6D's parade then have fun. The guys shooting on C300's, Sony F's or Arri's haven't even noticed you are in the room.

It is all relative. If somebody is capable of getting good video out of a 5D3, then they will be capable of getting good video out of a 6D.

Both the 6D and 5D3 are good video cameras, but the superiority complex 5D3 users really are having a big old laugh to themselves when it comes to moire etc.

I strongly disagree. The 5D Mark II remains a very nice camera, but its low light is poor, the codec has issues, and for wide shots in particular the aliasing can be terrible. Everyone knew this even while they were using it. For certain jobs it's just as good as a Mark III, and it's a viable camera for most purposes, but I feel confident walking in with a Mark III that I can deliver everything a client expects, except resolution on par with high end systems. With the Mark II, I'm worried about wide shots, low light, fabric, and hair. Projected large, there's a difference in wide shots in particular. Granted I found the upgrade from a t2i I owned (and 5Ds and 7Ds when available) to a 5D III to offer depreciating returns, but all the major problems (noise past 800 ISO, unacceptable amounts of skew, unacceptable aliasing, etc.) are tempered. Saving $1000 and getting a 6D for video and suffering many of the same problems seems foolish. That said, upgrading from a 5D Mark II might be very unnecessary depending on your needs. It sounds like your needs don't require the strengths a Mark III provides over a 6D or 5D Mark II. But there are people for whom the difference is getting a shot and not getting it. Technically all three cameras can produce visible aliasing, but look at the video posted above. Only one camera provides consistently acceptable results on fine patterns.

Furthermore, none of the camera systems you've listed (digibeta and go pro?) are comparable in any way to dSLRs and wouldn't be used for the same productions. Apples and oranges. Whereas the 6D and 5D III are like... apples and apples that are much better for certain types of video.

The F3, Epic, and Alexa are likewise suited for a different kind of production. It's not like they're even better or worse (in terms of IQ, they're better, though the Epic has mediocre low light), they're simply designed to be operated by more people on a bigger set, provide a more flexible image, and interface better with a traditional crew. They're designed mostly for TV production and theatrical features. dSLRs are more crash cams and web video. There are jobs for which a dSLR is much better than an Alexa, and even if you're lucky enough to be hired for narrative production, I doubt you'll encounter many shoots without a dSLR tucked away somewhere grabbing the odd insert.

I'm glad you're off in Alexa land ignoring us dSLR shooters who are off your map, but there are shooters who won't find a 6D useable and who will find a 5D Mark III great. There are also users for whom the difference will be virtually unnoticeable. For talking heads (and assuming no issues with moire in hair or fabric) both are just about as good. For wide shots, fast motion (skew and the ALL-I codec matter), and low light the difference is worth more than $1000.

To some people. Just as the $60,000 step up into Arri land is likely worth it to you! (And I'm in agreement, the Alexa is just the best thing going for narrative production, not that I can get hired to shoot on one.)

paul13walnut5

My core point is that all cameras have issues, the op picked up moire, the 5d3 will moire, as has any ccd or cmos camera I've used in the right (wrong) situation.

And The reason I never bought a 5d2 is exactly ad you've described,ML had the hack as I was buying, but the wide angles were better (effective focal length for focal length) the jellio far less and the depth of field more managable, out the box pal, full hd video preview, better stills performance for my shooting etc etc.

If the answer is to buy a new camera then the question is all wrong.

Can't fix moire on a 6d not going to be able to fix it on s 5d3, when it inevitably will occur.

In the middle of making the business case for a pair of c100's and I'm considering one for my personal freelance kit.

Not the best codec, but for the occasions something above 8bit is required I'll hire a samuri.

For this specific shot, of those tiles eith that lens at that setting, a 5d3 MAY have been better.

I don't entirely agree. The moire on the 5D Mark III is dramatically less than on all other Canon dSLRs, excepting the 1DC. It's no worse than most video-specific cameras; the other dSLRs are MUCH worse. It samples the entire chip (through binning) whereas others skip pixel lines. Because of that, the low light and moire reduction are worlds better than the other Canon dSLRs and on par with what you'd see in a 100% magnified still. Worlds better.

Resolution, DR, color depth, etc. is the same. But moire is dramatically better. Whether it's an issue for you is up to you, but I've seen that sample video's results repeated time and time again any time brick walls or fabric or certain textures of hair enters the frame. For more organic, low frequency material the difference is imperceptible. If you shoot certain kinds of material frequently, the 5D Mark III might be the only Canon dSLR that's useable. I've shot on the Mark II, 7D, t2i, t3i, a few Nikons, the GH2, etc. and pretty extensively. (Also, the Epic, F3, and I've done a lot of post with Alexa footage, which is the best of all by far.) And the GH2 and Mark III are the only two dSLR-type cameras without aggravating levels of moire.

The C100's HDMI is 8 bit. Only the F3, Alexa, and Red offer 10 bit log or 14 bit linear or whatever. Its c log is also fake log with the highlights compressed wrong and over saturated, whereas Sony and Arri have true log curves. That said, it looks like a nice camera and a more worthy, versatile upgrade for videographers than any dSLR, the 1DC included.

It took me a lot of use to notice the differences between the Mark III and the other dSLRs I shoot with, but the difference is there. How much have you shot side-by-side with both? I promise if you shoot both with the right material (such as the test posted above) you'll quickly notice a difference that is dramatic and significant to many videographers. What do you do when faced with fabric that induces moire? You can't always tell the talent to change or throw it out of focus -- and the problem is often less visible in the viewfinder than in the footage itself.

All Canon dSLRs (excepting the 1DC) still have poor resolution and DR and grade poorly in post relative to true video cameras, granted, and I agree the C100 is a more worthy upgrade for video. By far. But just because you don't need moire reduction and low light doesn't mean others won't.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 09:40:49 PM by Policar »

Logged

paul13walnut5

Read back in the thread, in my first answer I detail how to combat moire.

I'm sure the 5D3 is great, haven't had hands on yet, and of the DSLR's I'll take you at your informed word that it's one of the best. (haven't shot on the GH2 either to be fair, as a system it's just not on my map, wrong mount, would have to hire one to shoot on, nobody's renting, I'm confident in what I've already invested in, so I'm not going to buy another system)

My point is that buying a new camera to fix moire isn't really a fix. Or the OP really is better just buying an Alexa.

Again I'll refer you back to my first answer.

Thanks for the heads up on the c100's hdmi, that is worth knowing, seems the HDCAM will still be getting a dusting down now and then when 10bit is demanded, still the c100's are probably going to be the workhorses for the next couple of years, unless the blackmagic guys go to s35 sometime very soon. Doubtful.

If it works for you it works for you, but I'd be scared to blur footage that's already so blurry, and I usually deliver to clients who do their own post. Not everyone will share your experience is all I'm saying. Not everyone can do their own post or devote that much time to it. For stills the 6D looks just fine, excepting autofocus maybe. For video I couldn't recommend it. Not when a used Mark II is cheaper and a new Mark III is materially better for video.

The C100 looks great. I don't know why people get so worked up about 8 bit versus 10 bit, but if 10 bit recording matters to you, look elsewhere. Clients don't care, and the C100 doesn't need a 10 bit wrapper since its DR is poor relative to the F3 and Alexa, anyway. Should be worlds beyond any Canon dSLR, likely even the 1DC, but I doubt it will approach the underrated F3 for highlight detail or tonality is all, even with an external recorder.

I have old crt and lcd tv for review before I deliver, for sd output half pixel gaussian blur makes massive difference, especially on crt where sharping can be horrific.

But the C100 realistically only has about 11 stops of latitude. Compressing them into 8 bits gives you 0.7 bits per stop. The Alexa has 14 stops. For real. In ten bits. That's .7 bits per stop.

All I'm saying is, assuming you use an external recorder with the C100, that's plenty of flexibility either way.

I'm glad your blur workflow works for you, but I don't post the footage I shoot for the most part. And I'd be scared to blur dSLR footage any more than it's already blurry. And I've encountered plenty of dSLR footage (like the link above of the brick walls) that would still exhibit horrible aliasing with that much blur.

My core point is that all cameras have issues, the op picked up moire, the 5d3 will moire, as has any ccd or cmos camera I've used in the right (wrong) situation.

And The reason I never bought a 5d2 is exactly ad you've described,ML had the hack as I was buying, but the wide angles were better (effective focal length for focal length) the jellio far less and the depth of field more managable, out the box pal, full hd video preview, better stills performance for my shooting etc etc.

If the answer is to buy a new camera then the question is all wrong.

Can't fix moire on a 6d not going to be able to fix it on s 5d3, when it inevitably will occur.

In the middle of making the business case for a pair of c100's and I'm considering one for my personal freelance kit.

Not the best codec, but for the occasions something above 8bit is required I'll hire a samuri.

For this specific shot, of those tiles eith that lens at that setting, a 5d3 MAY have been better.

But that really is missing the point.

I somewhat agree with the superiority complex, because the 5D mark III really is that good. =P But seeing as how the 6D is priced much closer to the level of the 5D mark II. It all comes down to you get what you pay for. I own both, and I'm very much aware of their value. If you're doing pro video then you're most likely not using DSLRs, at least not as a main cam. I can understand using DSLRs for the cinema look, because it does look great to the general public and the 5D mark II proved that years ago. But you have to think really hard about where the 6D is priced and positioned. Only someone without common sense would think that the 6D should have the same amount of advantages as a 5D mark III. We have to accept it for what it is, and it's still great for the price point and not everyone cares about moire, mostly just us in this thread. Moire is more of a technical disadvantage than a creative one. If you've seen great videos by the 5D mark II and almost all the cameras that came after it, it's silly to make moire such a big deal, even now. There's obviously a price premium to avoid it, as long as you're still dedicated to using a Canon system. If you're good at what you do then you have to be ready to accept what limits you will have in the equipment you buy. Moire is not that big of a deal if you're not ready to make the bigger investment.

For video, the 6D brings basically no advantage over a 5D2. And those can be found, used, for a lot less than you'd pay for a 6D. That would be my advice for anyone going for a full frame video DSLR and no budget for a 5D3 or D800.

My point is that buying a new camera to fix moire isn't really a fix. Or the OP really is better just buying an Alexa.

Really? So one must either live with 5D2/6D/D800/etc. moire/aliasing or buy an Alexa?Alexa is a bit pricey and bulky and you still needs a still body and lenses too if you also do that making it all even yet more bulky and expensive.

Sure the 5D3 is a bit soft and only 8 bit and this and that and is no match for an Alexa by any means but....

I've certainly found it to be a nice fix.And the stills performance with the improved AF and fps and all are quite nice too compared to the 5D2/6D.

I'm glad your blur workflow works for you, but I don't post the footage I shoot for the most part. And I'd be scared to blur dSLR footage any more than it's already blurry. And I've encountered plenty of dSLR footage (like the link above of the brick walls) that would still exhibit horrible aliasing with that much blur.

+1

And what about stuff like small lights moving in the wind that flicker on and off as they hit parts of the sensor not sampled, no blur filter will ever bring them back on the frames where they blinked out and even something as simple as ripples on a lake at sunset can turn into an aliased/moire mess that would require blurring the water to like no texture at all. And no amount of blur will change small spots that should be white or a certain color that have turned all sorts of random colors back to what they should be unless you go in and paint them back frame by frame or write a complex automate tool.

Again you can do lots of great stuff with a 5D2 and probably even a 6D, but the 5D3 is a noticeable improvement for lots of stuff all the same.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 04:11:47 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

Logged

paul13walnut5

False dichotimy, from the very first post, and along the way, have I not advocated learning how to fix affected footage without resorting to a new camera, techniques that will help whether you are on a t3i or a 1dc?